In
workers' compensation law, a claimant is entitled to
medically related and reasonably required treatment as long
as the treatment is for an injury or disease sustained in the
course of and resulting from employment. Tim Hollington was
working for B E Aerospace, Inc., when he was injured in a
motor vehicle accident. We are asked to decide whether
orthopedic surgery should be authorized. After a thorough
review of the evidence, we find that the requested surgery is
not medically related or reasonably required for the
compensable injury. We also find, after consideration of the
parties' briefs and evidentiary record, that the
decisional process would not be significantly benefitted by
oral argument. We find no substantial question of law or
prejudicial error. Therefore, a memorandum decision is
appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure.

Mr.
Hollington was treated by Benjamin Moorehead, M.D., for a
work injury. Mr. Hollington reported pain in his left hip and
a burning sensation in the thigh. Driving long distances
caused increased hip pain. The impression was left hip/pelvic
strain involving the left SI joint. Dr. Moorehead referred
Mr. Hollington for physical therapy. Mr. Hollington received
physical therapy for two months from Dynamic Physical
Therapy. He initially presented with symptoms consistent with
sacroiliac dysfunction and thoracic sprain/strain following a
work-related motor vehicle accident. The diagnoses were
listed as pain in pelvic region and thigh, osteitis
condensans, and sprain of the sacroiliac region. The claim
was held compensable for abrasions to the bilateral knees and
a closed head injury. Mr. Hollington was not found to be
eligible for temporary total disability benefits as he was
disabled for less than three days.

Mr.
Hollington testified in a deposition that he was driving a
truck, took a turn too fast, and flipped the truck. He had
pain in the left side of his body including the shoulder,
ribs, and hip. He stated that he was improving with treatment
but treatment was then stopped. Since therapy ended, he has
experienced increased pain in his ribs and a burning
sensation from his lower back to his left hip. Mr. Hollington
then completed a reopening form for temporary total
disability benefits. Dr. Moorehead listed the diagnosis as
left hip sprain with pain and burning over the hip and thigh.
He recommended an MRI and physical therapy. Mr. Hollington
could return to work for sedentary work only. Dr. Moorehead
then stated that he was temporarily and totally disabled from
April 28, 2014, until August 31, 2015. A treatment note by
Dr. Moorehead indicates Mr. Hollington had continued symptoms
with no significant improvement. He diagnosed left hip and
pelvic sprain/strain and requested physical therapy and an
MRI arthrogram of the left hip. Mr. Hollington was
temporarily and totally disabled through the end of August of
2015.

Sushil
Sethi, M.D., performed an independent medical evaluation in
which he opined that Mr. Hollington has had more than
sufficient physical therapy. He stated that Dr. Moorehead did
not provide any examination findings and there were no
specific objective physical findings that would require
physical therapy. On examination, Dr. Sethi found no
residuals from the compensable injury that would require
physical therapy. There were also no new and distinct
findings that would require temporary total disability from
June 22, 2014, through August 31, 2015. The compensable
conditions would have resolved prior to June 22, 2014. Dr.
Sethi determined Mr. Hollington had reached maximum medical
improvement and assessed 3% impairment.

Dr.
Moorehead stated in a letter that Mr. Hollington remained
unable to work pending the approval of an MRI and physical
therapy. He also completed an attending physician's form
stating that Mr. Hollington was not at maximum medical
improvement. His estimated period of disability was from
April 28, 2014, through July 1, 2016. Mr. Hollington then
testified in a deposition that he has not returned to work or
been released to return to work. He has steady back pain in
his left hip that goes to his knee and rib cage. He stated
that his ribs keep popping in his spine which is causing
lumbar spine problems.

The
claims administrator denied Dr. Moorehead's request for
orthopedic surgery. The Office of Judges affirmed the
decision. It found that the claims administrator's
decision cites a request from Dr. Moorehead dated January 11,
2016; however, the request was not made a part of the record.
The only evidence of record that matches that date is the
attending physician's benefits form completed by Dr.
Moorehead, which does not request any type of surgery. The
Office of Judges concluded that without the request for
treatment, there is no way to determine if the cited request
for orthopedic surgery is medically related or reasonably
necessary to treat the compensable injury. The Office of
Judges found that the compensable conditions in the claim are
closed head injury, bilateral knee abrasions, and hip
sprain/strain, none of which warrant surgery. Furthermore,
Mr. Hollington was found to be at maximum medical improvement
by Dr. Sethi. The Office of Judges therefore concluded that a
preponderance of the evidence failed to show that the
requested surgery is medically related or reasonably
necessary. The Board of Review adopted the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the Office of Judges and affirmed
its Order.

On
appeal before this Court, Mr. Hollington argues that Dr.
Moorehead performed a differential hip injection which showed
that his symptoms are the result of an underlying labral
tear. Mr. Hollington asserts that the surgery should be
authorized or that the case should be reversed for a more
complete development of the facts. B E Aerospace, Inc.,
argues that the claim has only been held compensable for
abrasions and a hip sprain and surgery is not necessary for
these minor injuries. It asserts that any necessity for
surgery is due to Mr. Hollington's progressive,
non-compensable degenerative conditions.

After
review of the evidence of record and consideration of the
parties' arguments, we agree with the reasoning and
conclusions of the Office of Judges as affirmed by the Board
of Review. The claim has been held compensable for abrasions,
a hip sprain, and a head injury, none of which require
surgery. Mr. Hollington was found to be at maximum medical
improvement. A preponderance of the evidence indicates that
if he requires surgery, it is not related to the compensable
injury. We therefore find that the decision of the Board of
Review is not in clear violation of any constitutional or
statutory provision, nor is it clearly the result of
erroneous conclusions of law, nor is it based upon a material
misstatement or mischaracterization of the evidentiary
record. Therefore, the decision of the Board of Review is
affirmed.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.